tv Today in Washington CSPAN April 14, 2011 6:00am-9:00am EDT
and the only way we have is to a rastus and we have four ways of arrest in egypt, and now it is occupying in egypt, not only egypt but american interest in the middle east and because all this who are advocating there are maybe individuals but it is why we should be [inaudible] >> thank you very much. there we go. thank you all for being with us today. we appreciate your time in coming and this is ending the hearing. >> thank you all very much.
also. but even if it is an offset i would appreciate if they close i was kept on it. even as an offset and an accounting maneuver, then rhetorically we have less money and fund which means people will not be as comfortable in giving money to victims services. even if the exact amount is going to come back out to the field that came out in prior years that's not enough for the field. we are sitting round -- ramifications of that right now. the victim's son is victims money and that's what it should be going. >> thank you all very much what you do and for your testimony. >> senator grassley, you're up. >> i explained to the chairman -- [inaudible]
>> ms. garvin, can you tell me about the fact that crime victims fund has had on the victims to whom you provide services? >> the services they provide are funded through two streams. the federal crime victims rights act has an operation for appropriations in it, and someone has come currently through appropriations to fund some of our work. although that is not happen since 2008. other funds have come to grant programs including office of victims of crime. and the cap i would say, what's happening to our services and services nationally. is there's not enough money making its way out to the field. we know that victims have more need than it being funded. we know that the legal clinics that we oversee are going to shut down this year. and that victims including
victims in the tucson shooting will not have an attorney with them as of july of this year that clinic will not have funding to continue and to provide representation. so the cap is putting restrictions on the services that are available. >> george usher was not you make -- you think make sense for us to make new programs are nothing short change are fully funded? >> as has been spoken about this morning already, those programs that are providing good services and have been tested and are evidence-based, they should continue being funded. our program has been tested. we have been evaluated other programs around the country have also. though should be funded first. that's a promise we made to victims. looking for in creating new programs is a visionary thing to do but not at the sacrifice of the words and promises we have already made the crime victims. >> ms. leary, the administration
proposes only a small increase in the cap from the victim, crime victims fund, and it would zero out the federal victim notification system, which i said my state notifies crime victims when an individual who committed that crime is released. further, it would reduce by one-third the budget for the national crime victimization survey. do you support these cuts the administration has proposed? >> senator grassley, i think one of the things the department is thinking about is the impact of the vision 21 initiative which is ongoing now which is taking a comprehensive look at what we need to better serve victims going forward from here. in the past there have been piecemeal looks, you look at one piece of the system and you try
to improve things there, then you look at another piece, try to improve things there. but it doesn't work unless you look at the whole and you look at all other kinds of programs that are needed, and make decisions based on that. that's exactly what we are doing. and i think out of that process will come a different way of looking at victims services, proposals to fund all of those things that work, that fit into that comprehensive view, and to use the funds in the ways that are most appropriate for what we know victims need. i totally agree we need to avoid duplication of services. i think we need help victim service providers learn more about how to base what they do on evidence that we need to help them learn how to increase their own capacity to serve victims in a smarter, more efficient way.
>> i can't find fault with your survey and studying things and being evidence-based and all that, but it seems to me that by doing to these two programs what they are doing, that they have already made a declaration that those programs are not serving, so you think they would wait until you and they would wait until the study is over before you reached conclusion that you may put low priority on supporting crime victims as evidenced by these proposed cuts. i go on to ask you this question, it will do my last one. despite the cuts that i mentioned, the administration proposes 135 million more be spent on victims of violence against women. you've also called for continuation of new hate crime victim discretionary grant program that the justice department created. given the shortfalls of funny for crime victims as has been made clear today, do you believe
certain types of victims should take priority over others? and that's what i sense from the priority given to these programs. i don't have anything, i do see anything wrong with those programs but i just, it seems to me you have greater priority. >> what we know, senator grassley, is that in fact right now a good percentage of that voca funds go to victims of violence against women because unfortunately that's one of the enduring challenges of the victim services field. there are so many overwhelming unmet needs. you heard mr. bodek -- mr. burbank having to turn away the beds are full, the phone to ring off the hook. we know the national domestic to end violence does a snapshot every year and they serve all the shelters and the crisis
service providers. and the last snapshot they took in that one day these organizations had served 70,000 victims, women and children for the most part. but they had to turn almost 10,000 away on a single day. so it's just that we already know that that is such a pervasive form of victimization with needs, unmet needs, that are almost -- that difficult to conquer and really because it's just so significant. we still need to do a lot more in that arena, and it crosses all age lines, race lines, socioeconomic lines. >> thank you very much. thank you, madam chair,. >> thank you. senator blumenthal. >> thank you, madam chairman. i have a question regarding longer-term services, many of the victims advocate for the
conservatives focus on short-term needs as you know. and very rightly and deservedly so. my office has been working with a group called voices of september 11 which does work and mental health screening and counseling and other kinds of casework. and provides, that group provides services in those areas. and i wonder if you could talk about the strategy of your respective efforts in terms of dealing with a longer range services that can be provided to crime victims. >> will, speaking for the pima county attorney's office, you're right. we recognize that on the short-term but the long-term. the short-term, when we go out with a law enforcement to work with those victims, as we did on
the january shooting, that's a safeway where this occurred in hospital. but do we fall those victims providing them with support throughout the entire criminal justice system. and a big piece of what we are doing is not one of the criminal justice advocacy but as you mentioned that lots of other needs, and making time to make sure that those advocates are well-versed in what committee resources are available, getting them connected with victim compensation fund that can help fund some of those, mental health as well as other health needs for these victims is crucial. in this case because of the nature that is both a federal case as well as a state case, these victims most likely will be in the criminal justice system for at least five years, and potentially much longer than that as we know for example, with the oklahoma city bombings. we also know after cases conclude many of those wounds still are there for these victims and they have needs that go on for years and years and years. so it is a very important part.
i'm glad you are focusing time and energy to look at the ongoing and long-term needs of victims, so thank you for that. >> i would like to echo that, that i appreciate the focus on. i know in our work so far in vision 21, one of the things we have noted that's coming from the field is long-term care for victims is critical. what our services, some of the cases that our lawyers are working on, there's an organ? no, habeas case going on now were a woman was stabbed 18 years ago and habeas pussy was just out and she was ordered to go to deposition after, 18 years after his death. we need a lawyer for her there. the ongoing care is critical as well as continuity of care, making sure the same program that he or she as a victim has developed a relationship are there when they need services five, 10, 15 come even 20 years later is critical. >> thank you for that question.
unfamiliar with the september 11 for my work at the national center for victims of crime. and i know the acting director is very familiar with that. with that organization. they represent, excuse me, the significance of this kind of needs, long-term needs. and as make said, there's a lot of focus on that to the vision 21 initiative. i'd like to add that we need more research to this arena as well, so that we have a much better understanding of the impact of crime over the long term. what are the mental health issues that can arise? what are the emotional kind of issues? what kind of impact is your victimization to you as an individual, what kind of impact does that have on your family,
on your loved ones over the long-term? it's hugely significant, and many victims including the september 11 victims, have spoken to us about the pain of people treating them as if they should just have gotten over it by now. that's just not the case. and, unfortunately, our society still is rather insensitive about this. >> my time has expired but i just want to commend you and thank you for the great work you are doing, and particularly as we celebrate this month. thank you very much for all your doing. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, and i want to thank all of you for being here on this important day. it's the 30th anniversary of the first national crime victims rights week. we've come a long way despite the challenges that we're facing
now. i know in my own office that i used to have at the county -- the attorney's office, met your counterpart. we certainly were a leader in these areas, including our domestic rights center, where we really had a one-stop shopping and still giunta county attorney mike freeman for victims of domestic assault. where not only are the prosecutors and police, but also the shelters and others are there to help with their needs. i've been a big believer in this. we did surveys are office and found that while the results were important of cases, and convictions were important, just as important and sometimes more important to the victims were how they were treated in the system. so many times i was victim advocates that were there in the face because the prosecutors would be off doing cases. so beyond the things that i think people think about in terms of hope and counseling and
services, just having people there with them through the process so they felt it was fair. even if the case had to be dismissed because there wasn't enough evidence, or even if a plea had to be taken that wasn't exactly what they wanted in the first place, having a victims rights advocate their gave him safe in the system and made for such better cases so that victims and witnesses felt comfortable about going forward and didn't back out at the last minute, testifying because they had someone there for them. so i just want to thank all of you for all the good work you are doing. i had questions, first of all, ms. leary, about the vision 21 process. and i was thinking as we talked about the funding and some of the cuts that we are concerned about and we will continue to advocate for the funding that it be there, you mentioned in your testimony that one area that patient when one is likely to tackle is data collection and research on victimization
issues. and i think data can help not only finding the most effective programs aware making sure that the money is going to richard, but also to support the work that has been done. could you talk about that data collection aspect of vision 21? >> yes. the vision 21 group has i think really focused in on the need for research and data collection, because there's an awful lot about victimization, particularly among underserved victim populations. that we don't know. under reporting of crimes is huge problem. so we have to figure out how do you get at that? and you know it's really interesting, 30 years ago the underreporting was exactly the same statistic as today. i found that quite astounding. so we know that unlikely to
change dramatically going forward so we've got to find ways to collect our data without relying strictly on reported crime or convictions and so on. that's one of the things the national crime victimization survey attempts to do, but surveys have been used for quite some time. i know jim lynch is looking at a redesign of the survey, has been working on that. because we have to kind of come into the 21st century and figure out better ways of getting folks to respond to the questions about victimization. and we need to find ways to collect data from populations that have traditionally just been left, either left out or have withdrawn. native american populations is a good example, young african-american males.
we know very little about that type of victimization from other than what you read, you know, in america section of the "washington post," the sort of sensational crime that gets covered but we don't know much about the process of victimization and the needs of those victims and so on. that's another group. we don't know -- we know almost nothing about victims who are in institutional settings, and that's where you're going to find your victims of elder abuse, of all kinds. you will find your victims who have mental health issues or developmental challenges. we don't really know anything about that group. and particularly when you think about the elderly, those 85 and above are the fastest growing segments of the population. we cannot afford not to know about that. >> i also took note when you
talk about the technology and the changing nature of crime, actually have a bill with senator hutchinson about updating our stalkers legislation and the cyber legislation that's on the books of the very outdated select cases like we had in the last year with a newsroom who was undressing and someone filmed her and put it out on the internet. it was hard for the u.s. attorney's office to put a case together. and they did, but it could be made a lot easier if we updated our laws electronic surveillance. along those lines, you said that vision to anyone would address how the latest technology could be leveraged to transfer how we reach and serve victims. can you talk about that? >> one of the huge gaps that's been identified by thank you, madavision 21 isthe capacity ofe providers. their technology is so unsophisticated because they
barely have money to pay their staff to keep them around to help the victims. they don't have the funding for the general operations or to approve technology to figure out how can we reach out to victims. for instance, in a rural area which i'm sure, plenty of those in minnesota. how do we connect to those victims who are far away? how do we connect to those victims where there are language barriers and cultural barriers that technology could actually facilitate bridging those gaps, translation services and things of that nature. how can we use technology to meet victims where they're at, not just geographically, but culturally and in terms of the technology that those victims use. if you read those few studies you will find that certain segments of the population are
much more likely to use a particular type of technology and others. for instance, in chicago the hispanic community there is much more elected to be using cell phones and computer. which i learned from you when i was working on a project with the police department how you could engage a community, can just rely on those beach meetings every two weeks, how you going to reach out. you need to find the kind of technology that relate to that they actually use. >> very good. mr. burbank, you describe the crime scene on january 8 and that horrible day when tommy people were insensitively gunned down. can you tell us, the victims people there, could you tell us about the kind of training that goes into building a victims advocacy division? >> absolutely. you're right, it just doesn't magically appear. it takes a lot of work to put
this together. we are fortunate as i mentioned a 35 years of experience doing this. and what it looks like is we actually send our volunteers for almost the identical training that we use for our staff paid positions it as we rely on those volunteers to do the exact same work as a staff person. they have to be ready out in the field to respond to any type of crime at any time, day or night. so we send them through every six hours of basic crisis intervention training that's available to anyone in the metro area of tucson to partake in if they want. and then on top of that they go through an advanced course that's about 30 hours of advanced training. and then they do essentially on the job done but it's a very long process. we asked for at least a year commitment from folks, and we asked for 20 hours a week -- 20 hours a month from our volunteers. 20 hours a week would be a lot. >> so that's i think when things people people think well,
obviously with budget crunches we can use more volunteers and we should use more volunteers, i think it's a good idea we have interns in her office when i was the only senator for eight months. we had to use a lot of interns because we couldn't add any staff to the budget. but i think what people don't understand you still need training and you still need people to oversee the volunteers. >> absolutely. they cannot all be done with volunteers. we make an amazing use of volunteers in our program and we're very proud of that but the reality is we have to have a staff over single soldiers, training those volunteers. it's an enormous commitment of time and energy in order to maintain the volunteer pool to be able to provide these services. >> thank you. ms. garvin, do you want to answer that question as well about how volunteers are critical, and then how we could utilize volunteers and how they still have to be supervised and trained? >> absolutely. as i've mentioned in my
testimony, we have 11 clinics operated around the country but we have been trying to compliment that by going and national pro bono pool of attorneys and advocates and we put them through training, to the name of that is the national alliance of victims rights attorney and went almost 1000 members right now. what's critical is we can have an attorney anywhere in the country but have not had a training on what victims rights are. any of the lawyers in the room and as i know you know from law school, the word of victim and victims rights did not get shot in the law school curriculum even today. and so mr. burbank's how to represent victims is a pretty intensive process so we're working on it, working nationally to try to have lawyers around the country know how to do it and know how to do it without re- victimize the victims but it takes intensive work and we need to keep that it spent and the model had in our office, we had 20 people, 30 who are not lawyers for the most
part, that were basically the victims contacts and did mean the prosecutors were not working with the victims. but it saves a lot of the time so they could do the cases. these are all felony level cases so we were able to do it that way. antony it saves it saves money in the long term because prosecutors could focus on the cases in keeping up with a casework and a victims rights advocates handle a number of victims for teams of attorneys. >> so that model within a prosecutor's office is a great model. it allows the prosecutor to do the prosecution. it allows the victim advocate within the system to help navigate for the victims. but the model is to also have community-based legal advocacy and advocates after that can liaison with prosecutors office and it really protect a victims rights. and it saves money all around of all those because it's a long-term care aspect that has been talked about. if you give victims wraparound
system and could prosecution, good prosecution victim advocates and community based legal services and advocacy, we help reduce the trauma that the experience of going through the system. >> this is kind of a comment. domestic victims had on people inside domestic service center and then we had the property team actually with committee based. they handle things by area and so they have people that dealt with it that way. the rest were in specialty areas. but i just found it to be incredibly helpful, more than just holding hands. it was actually helping to get the cases running and nature the victims were there on time. i still remember talking to one of our victims advocates and shoot some kind come shade shift of white-collar case and was was a case where she was a widow and her husband had been ripped off from some guy who took all the money and went to costa rica and got a facelift. i remember saying to her, and leisure not even with a murder case.
i got down the hall and she goes, are you kidding? this woman is basically threatened to kill the perpetrator in the case, the facelift? it reminded me that every case is important and that people need someone by their side to calm them down and also to make sure the criminal justice system is fair. so anyway, i want to thank you. what law clerk did you work with in minnesota? you can't lie because you're on the record. >> i know. it's a great law firm. >> this is not get my little trace thing a habit i just ask them on the record. i have a lot of friends there. anyway, i want to thank all of you. as you can see, we have a lot of work to do. i think you see a committee that is devoted to victims rights here, certainly chairman leahy is. a lot of former prosecutors on our committee that understand how this works and how important it is and we will continue to advocate for you as we do not only with the budget but with the reauthorization and other bills that we have going for. so thank you so much.
so much of the work you do is in the trenches of people never know the hard decisions that victims rights advocates have to make and the wrenching stories that they have to here, and then have to go home and deal with the family and smile and pretend nothing was okay during the day when it really wasn't. so i just want to thank you for the work that you're doing in the justice system and help you get people. so with that we will keep the record open. i lost chairman leahy's gavel, hold on. we will keep the record open for further testimony, or anything people want to put in the record from the committee, and thank you. with that hearing is adjourned. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
but, mr. president, what i want but, mr. president, what i want >> i want to talk about is the lking a consequences of what they are talking about. to change the conversation away from how do we create jobs in this country? how do we authentically reduce deficit and debt in socially provocative riders that wage war against women. now, the extreme wing campaigned
against health care. they said they were going to repeal and replace. all they want to do is repeal. they have no idea for replacing. well, let's talk about what they want to repeal. let's talk about the war they're waging against women. if you repeal or defund health care, it will have draconian impact on american women. make no mistake about it in the health care bill we ended gender discrimination in health insurance. no longer could insurance companies charge 30% to 40% more than men for the same coverage of equal aging health status. the other thing that we ended was denying women health care on the basis of a preexisting condition. we were horrified to learn that in eight states women were
denied health care access -- insurance access simply because they were a victim of domestic violence. they were beaten up in their home. they were beaten up by insurance companies. and now they want to beat them up on the senate floor and beat them up in the senate budget. well, we're going to stand up. we're not going to tolerate women being pushed around and made targets of this war. and no longer can women be denied coverage because they had a c-section or because they had a premature baby. then we fought for he preventive services. we fought for mammograms and pap smears. but we fought not only for ourselves, we included for men too -- fought for men too. if you defund health care, make no mistake and every woman in america should know they're going to take the funding for
mammograms away from you. they're going to take away the preventive health amendment that allowed you access for preventive screening at no additional co-pace or de -- co-pace or deductibles. sure, you'll be able to have your mammogram but you're going to dig deep in your pocket. so then we also allowed -- so we also fought the fact that -- so we wanted to end gender discrimination. we wanted to end the punitive practices of insurance companies towards women on the basis of preexisting conditions. and we also wanted to have preventive care. and one of the greatest preventive care giving agencies is planned parenthood. it is the single -- one of the single most important health care providers to particular young women in america. 8,000 american women -- if we lose planned parenthood, we're
going to lose -- maryland -- 8,000 maryland women will lose pap smears. 500 women will lose access to breast care exams. many of them will lose access to health care generally. now, just because the republicans live in the dark ages doesn't mean american women want to go back to them. that's why we, the senate democratic women, will be voting against these two riders. women must be clear, defending this amendment are a way to end the war against women. there will be many fights ahead of us. we are under attack. we women and -- we women are under attack at all ages. the paul ryan budget particularly attacks senior women. we're going to fight this. we're suited up. we've squared our shoulders. we put our lipstick on. and, mr. president, this is not about gender. this is about an american agenda
and we will fight and we will make our fight a victory. mr. president, i yeeltd floor. -- i yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington is recognized. mrs. murray: mr. president, i want to thank all of my democratic women colleagues and speak so passionately as senator mikulski has just done. you will hear from all of us we are outrageous that the price tag for a vote on the continuing resolution is to attack votes on women's health. i yield to the senator from california for five minutes. mrs. boxer: i want to thank, mr. president, senators mikulski and murray, senator cantwell and shaheen and stabenow and landrieu. i'm going to really name every single democratic woman. they - have been unbelievable. our republican friends in the house have insisted this debate is about spending. well, i've got to tell you, we
went all the way to them about 70% plus on spending cuts. we understand we have to cut, but we're not going to cut foolishly. we're not going to cut into the heart and soul of our country, and that includes women's health programs. women's health programs, mr. president, title 10, planned parenthood funding. for every dollar of taxpayer funds they yield $4, that's how great the prevention is. and, yet, still what do they want to do? you see these two riders. these two votes we have to have until they would allow us to have a vote on keeping the government open. they pounded the table and say we have to have two riders. what was it? was it some big budgetary item that maybe we joaferred looked? was it -- overlooked?
was it some move that would say to the taxpayers that aren't paying their taxes due like some of the big corporate giants that hire enough lawyers they don't pay? no, it wasn't about that. was it about some scandal that they uncovered that they said could save us? no. the two votes they want are about giving the shaft to women. women and their families, the two votes are about health care which primarily impact women, and, by the way, also men. but primarily impact women. so if that's the kind of budget war they're engaged in, they had -- have met us on the battlefield. and we have decided that we will remain on that battlefield, which is this senate floor as long as we have to we will go to the galleries and the press. as long as we have to we'll
fight it in our states, we'll fight it in our cities, we will fight it in our counties. we will fight it. and we believe at the end of the day the people will see who is fighting for them. who's fighting for them? now i'm going to just read a couple of letters from my state. my state is the largest state in the union, and planned parenthood provides care for 750,000 women. listen to this woman. planned parenthood is the only health care i've ever used -- ever, she says. i tonight have health insurance so when i get sick, i get over it as soon as possible so i can go back to work. planned parenthood has provided me with the only health care coverage i can afford. pelvic exams, birth control. it isn't much, she writes, but can you imagine the millions of people who rely on planned parenthood suddenly living their lives without these basic services? and she answer her own question.
it's shameful -- it's shameful and that's a letter from sonia kodimer. i have other letters, mr. president. letters from women in my great state. three million americans get care at planned parenthood. three-quarters of them have incomes below 150% of the federal poverty lef. they re -- level. they rely on planned parenthood. more than half do as their own health care. by the way the other rider that we have to vote on is to defund health care. my colleagues have said it. senator mikulski, who worked night and day with the late and great and extraordinary ted kennedy to get us to the point where finally we're telling the insurance companies, no, no, no, no, you can't charge women three, four, five times more for the same coverage as man.
by the way, being a woman is not a preexisting condition. and if you've had a c-section, you can't deny the woman who had a c-section health care coverage. if you're a victim of domestic violence, that is not a preexisting condition. that is what we repaired in the bill. in addition to many other things we did. they want to give the shaft to women and their families and we're not going to stand for it. barbara haya from oakland wrote to me. she said she was a student. when she was a student with limited fund she was denied health insurance because of a preexisting condition. planned parenthood was barbara's only source of basic health care. and when she needed cancer screenings, planned parenthood was there. and she says, "please, please don't cut any funding to planned parenthood becaus." because without them she wouldn't have her health care. let's be clear, nationwide
services -- 90% of the services that planned parenthood provides doesn't include abortion. it has never happened for that 3%, that's private funding. so don't stand up and say this is about abortion. it has nothing to do with it. as a matter of fact, if they have their way, and this is a fact, mr. president, and women don't get birth control, we will see more unintended pregnancies, we will see more abortions. that is just a fact. anyone who votes to defund planned parenthood, a, they're denying essential health care services to women and their families. and, b, their policy relief to more unintended pregnancies and more abortions. so, yes, we stand here strong and maybe some of us are five feet or under even in a couple of cases, but that belies our determination and our strength. and we stand here united and we
say to the people of this country, you can count on us because we will be here as long as it takes to protect women and their families and we will not allow women and their families to be held hostage. it's over, it's over. thank you very, very much and i thank senator murray and senator mikulski, and i yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i want to thank my colleague from california, and you will hear more from us. frankly, mr. president, we are here today because we are outraged. we strongly opposed the resolutions on the floor that slash health care for women and girls and middle-class families, and i have to say as a woman and as a mother, i am really angry that women's health care is even up for debate right now. middle-class families in this country are struggling. when i go home to my home state of washington, i hear about people who are worried about getting a pink slip or how
they're going to put food on the table, whether their job is going to be there for them and if we are making sure our economy is working for them and their children. that's what i hear about. i do not hear about when are you going to slash health care for women, not once. mr. president, we have seen a smoke screen and that's why we're here. last week, under the continuing resolution that was being negotiated between the house and the senate and the white house, one remaining open item -- eliminating title 10 funding for women's health care. it wasn't about budget deficits. it wasn't about the debt. it wasn't about jobs or the economy. it was about an ideological driven attack on women's health care. we were able to keep that out of the continuing resolution that we will vote on tomorrow, but the price tag that the republicans in the house gave us to get to a vote to keep government open and to move our country forward is two votes:
one that defunds planned parenthood and one that defends health care. both of those are extreme attacks on women's health care. my colleagues have spoken eloquently about planned parenthood. this is not about abortion. federal funds cannot go to abortions. we're, frankly, tired of having to correct the untruths that continually come out about this funding, but we're not going to give up and we're going to keep fighting and we're going to keep correcting them. planned parenthood is about providing federal funds for care like mammograms and cervical cancer screenings and prenatal care and family support and counseling. mr. president, this is about preventative health care services for women, and we take it as a direct attack on every woman in this country and her ability to get the health care that she needs. and the second vote is an attack to dismantle health care. well, let's remind all of us why health care finally became an issue that we were strong enough
to deal with in this country. i'll tell you why. because women finally said we've had enough. let's face it, women are the ones who take their kids to the doctor, they're the ones who see the bills coming in, and they're the ones who fight insurance companies on a daily basis, and they have said we've had enough. so we went through a long process here to make sure that we passed health care in a way that protected women. it was women who were denied health care coverage because of pre-existing conditions time and time again. we said no more. now they want to vote tomorrow to put that back into effect. we heard from women who were denied coverage for health care because they were a victim of domestic violence. we said no more, and now they attack that again. mr. president, there are so many reasons why this is the wrong approach, but i will let all of our colleagues know we're going to defeat these amendments tomorrow and we're going to move on, but the democratic women of the senate are now vigilant and we are here and we are not going
to allow the 2012 budget or further discussions as we go along be a smoke screen to cover up a real agenda which is to take away the access for health care and the basic rights that women have worked long and hard and fought for in this country. so thank you, mr. president, and i want you to know you'll be hearing more from us, but we're not going away. we're going to defeat these amendments tomorrow and we are here to fight them until they stop being offered. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor to my colleague from michigan. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. it's my great pleasure and honor to be here with my friends and colleagues who have all fought so long and hard to make sure that women's voices and experiences are represented in the decisions that we make here in the united states senate and in washington on behalf of all the families that we represent. i have to say that people in michigan, my family, friends,
everybody across michigan is shaking their head right now trying to figure out what the heck is going on. all of this really is a diversion from what we want to be talking about and doing something about, and that's jobs, putting people back to work, making sure people have money in their pocket to be able to pay their bills and that they can tackle their house that may very well be under water right now, and how they're going to pay for gas prices go through the roof and how they're going to be able to take care of their kids and make sure that they can have the opportunities to go to college that they want for them, all the things that we all want for our families, that's what families want us to be talking about right now. and i also have to say that the people in my state are finding that the dollars that they earn right now are hard to come by. these dollars are precious, and we need to be holding every
program accountable. we need to get results for every dollar they send and make decisions. if something doesn't work, we need to stop doing it and we need to focus on things that do, and we know that that whole deficit discussion is very critical for us and that we need to be smart about the way we do things. that's really not what this debate is about at the moment, certainly not on women's health care, but we understand that we need to be serious about this, and certainly in my role as chairing the agriculture, nutrition and forestry committee, we take that very seriously and we'll be doing that in the context of our responsibilities moving forward. but i also know, and the people in michigan understand more than i think anybody else across the country, that we'll never get out of debt with more than 15 million people out of work, which is why we want to focus on jobs. they also know that women of all ages, seniors, middle-class
families, didn't cause the deficit hole that we're in. and they should not be responsible for the sacrifice and burdens on their backs only in order to move us out of deficit, and we certainly are not going to allow a thinly veiled threat to women in general to become part of a debate about health -- about how we balance the budget and eliminate the deficit, which is a very real issue. the fact of the matter is in order to get the budget completed for this year, women, women's health care, was held hostage. now, we were able to separate that because the women came together in the senate and said there's no way that we are going to allow this whole debate to
become some political debate about whether or not women should get breast cancer screenings or cervical cancer screenings or blood pressure checks. and so we have separated that now from the agreement for the rest of the year, and i'm proud to have stood with women from all over this country to say no, we're not going to let you play politics with the women of this country in our health care. but now we have in front of us two different votes. this was the price we had to pay, and we're willing to stand here and make the case for why it's -- why people need to vote no, but it's also deeply concerning that we have to be in a situation to debate whether or not women should get breast cancer screenings and cervical cancer screenings and whether or not we should have access to health care as a part of the price to be able to come together on a budget agreement,
and that's exactly where we are. you know, in 2009, we had women from all over michigan, we have the majority of the funds for what's called title ix for preventative care goes to health departments, by the way. i helped to be able to support when i was a county commissioner years ago the ingham county health department, setting up their preventative care center for women, health care screenings for women and all across michigan, 70% of the funds under something called title 10 go to health departments. there is a small amount of that that goes to planned parenthood, and that's been very, very politicized now because of the other side's wish to politicize women's health care. but in 2009, those centers provided 55,000 cancer screenings, and we had almost
4,000 women -- 3,800 women -- who got back an abnormal result on a cancer screening. because they had a chance to get that screening, they then had the opportunity to do something about it, and lives were saved. moms are alive today to be able to care for their children and watch them grow up because they found out they had breast cancer early. grandmas are alive and well today to be able to play with their grandkids and their great grandkids because they found out early they had breast cancer or cervical cancer or some other health care challenge. i think we ought to celebrate that as the best of who we are in our values in this country. the other piece that we have in front of us will be to defund
health care in general, and we know, first of all, that women are health care consumers. usually in families making decisions about health insurance, if you are able to have health insurance or how to purchase it or what will be covered and certainly caring about our families, and we usually are the last ones to take care of ourselves, and i certainly can speak to that myself as maybe other colleagues can that we tend to make the decisions first for our children, our families and not take care of ourselves as we should. but we made a very strong statement and i think a value statement in health care reform to say that we want to make sure that women have access to health care and that they can afford to get it and that they're not penalized, we're not penalized as women, and that we're not going to have to pay more. right now, a priority of health care reform, any woman purchasing health insurance on her own was paying more,
sometimes up to 50% more or more for the same health insurance as a man or even less health insurance because she was a woman, because she may be of child-bearing years, because of whatever the reason women have traditionally paid more for insurance, that's no longer the case. now for the same coverage, the same medical circumstances, women cannot be discriminated against. that's a good thing. i think that's something we should be proud of that we have been able to do to make sure insurance companies cannot charge women more just because they're women. we've also made clear that preventative care is an essential part of basic health care, and i will always remember the debate that i had as a member of the finance committee with a colleague on the other side of the aisle over whether or not maternity care is a basic part of health insurance and health care.
of course, i think it's hard for people in michigan to understand why we would even have to have that debate, because prenatal care, maternity care certainly is a basic, not just for the woman involved but for the baby, for the family, but we stood together and we said we're going to make sure that maternity care is part of the definition of basic health care. so there were a number of things that we did together, the women of the senate, to make sure that over half the population, the women of this country, have access to quality, affordable health care for themselves so they can continue to care for their families and be a very important part of who we are in contributing to america. we're here because tomorrow the question will be should women's preventative health care services be allowed to continue as part of our framework in
terms of health care funding, both broadly in health care reform and narrowly under title 10 and family planning for the country. we will say no to the efforts to defund women's health care. i hope going forward, as we tackle huge issues for the country around bringing down the debt and balancing the budget and growing the economy and creating jobs and looking to the future that we will not see once again something as important as women's health care put on the chopping block as part of the debate. that's really the message that all of us have and the message that we will be sending tomorrow , that women across the country need to know that they are valued, that we want them to
be healthy, we want them to be able to afford to find health insurance, we want them to be able to get those cancer screenings, and that we value their lives and that we don't believe folks should continue to play politics with their health care. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. and i want to thank senators murray and mikulski, for gathering us here today and all of my colleagues who are here. i'm proud to be able to join them. tomorrow we're expected to be voting on house proposals to defund planned parenthood and the affordable care act. these resolutions have been offered not because anyone argues that they create jobs or improve health care, but because house republicans were willing to shut down the federal government if they did not receive a vote on planned parenthood and health care.
so that's right. even though shutting down the government would have meant furloughing 800,000 people, including members of the military, they were willing to shut down the government. this kind of a threat, especially in a recession, is irresponsible. planned parenthood is a a a critical provider of -- is a critical provider of women's health care especially to low-income individuals. 1.4 million medicaid patients around the country, mostly women, but not all women, depend on planned parenthood as their main source of primary and preventive health care. they depend on planned parenthood for contraceptives, for screenings for sexually transmitted diseases and for screenings for breast and cervical cancer. in some parts of my home state of new hampshire, planned parenthood is the only provider of preventive services for
low-income women. it serves almost 16,000 patients annually. in a time of economic hardship we should not be taking steps to reduce access to health care. and let's be clear, this vote has nothing to do with abortion. by law planned parenthood cannot -- that is cannot use federal funds for abortions. moreover planned parenthood provides family planning services that greatly reduce the occurrence of unplanned pregnancies. it's ironic that many of the most ardent opponents of abortion are the very people who want to shut down the family planning services that prevent unplanned pregnancies. so this vote is -- also not about deficit reduction. despite what some of -- members
of the senate have claimed 97% of the reproductive health services provided by planned parenthood in new hampshire and throughout most of the country are preventive care. over 90% are for preventive care. and, as we all know, preventive health care lowers health care costs and it saves lives. detecting cancer early through regular screenings greatly increases a patient's quality of life and her chances of survival. and in the long run, it's vastly cheaper for patients in the health care system and the federal government for diseases to be prevented or treated early. one of my constituents from rochester, a mother of two, told me about her oldest daughter who works for a small restaurant. her daughter can't afford health insurance and it's not provided through where she works. so for her regular checkups and
preventive care, she relies on planned parenthood. now, because of a history of cervical cancer in her family, her daughter was regularly screened. and it was planned parenthood that first diagnosed her daughter with cervical cancer. and because of that early diagnosis her daughter was able to obtain successful lifesaving treatment. there are countless stories like this. we heard some of them on the floor this afternoon. mr. president, i also want to address the other house proposal that we've been talking about this afternoon. it's a proposal that would also hurt women's health care, and that's the pending resolution to deny funding for health care reform. already the affordable care act is working for women across the country. as of last year it's illegal for insurance companies to require women to obtain
preauthorizations or referrals or access to ob/gyn care. women pay up to 48% more in premiums than men. this kind of discrimination because of the health care law will be outlawed. issuers will be banned from gender ratings to charge women and small businesses with predominately female workforces more for the same coverage. in the same year, 2014, health care reform also makes it illegal for insurers to deny health care coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions. designations which have often been used to discriminate against women. many women across the country today are denied coverage for preexisting conditions such as breast or cervical cancer. having had a c-section or even
just being pregnant. some women have even been denied coverage for having sought out medical care for domestic or sexual violence. it's critical that we ensure that low-income women have access to health care during these critical times and we ensure all women have rang s. to health care. so -- have access to health care. so i urge my colleagues to vote against these two provisions, these ideological attacks on women's health care. let's get back to the business of creating jobs and dealing with this country's debt and deficit. thank you very much, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington is recognized. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i join my colleagues to come to the floor this afternoon and talk about tomorrow's votes on two different amendments and to say that i'm proud to join my female senate democratic colleagues in this effort and to speak out about this important issue.
to me the american people have sent us a clear message. they want us to focus on job creation, promoting innovation and putting americans back to work. today we will try to defend access to health care for women. we'll vote tomorrow whether to defund planned parenthood, an agency that serves hundreds of thousands of people in my state on important exams such as breast examination and helping to permit -- permit -- prevent infections and various things. and just a few weeks ago i talked about one of our constituents, a 22-year-old woman from seattle who was diagnosed with an abnormal growth on herrer i her cervics d parenthood and was able to get treatment. without planned parenthood she would not have been able to get that kind of treatment and her health would have been in major danger in the future. i tell her story to emphasize
the importance of planned parenthood on prevention and that they -- there are centers of prevention for many, many women who have no other access to health care. so we cannot jeopardize the access to that preventive health care at a time when it is so important for us to reduce long-term costs. in fact, even in the investment area every dollar invested in family planning and publicly funded family planning clinics saves about $4.02 in medicaid related costs alone. so prevention of health care is good for us in saving dollars and it's certainly good for our individual constituents who have a lack of access to health care. that's why i'm so disappointed and the situation that we're having now where our colleagues are saying to us, you can get a budget deal, but you have to defund women's health care access to do so.
the avoidance of a government shutdown has also brought on, i think, a challenge on the backs of women in the district of columbia because it included a provision denying d.c. leaders the option of using locally raised funds to provide services to low-income women. for those who argue against big government this is a contradiction because this is a real imposition on the ability of elected initials the district of columbia to decide what to do with their locally raised funds. i know because i'm in the hart building, what the mayor and others on the council had to say about this. this is an imposition on the health services of low-income women in the district of columbia and certainly has gone almost unnoticed in the 11th hour. and i think sets a precedent for a dangerous slippery slope with what we are telling local governments to do. but, mr. president, it is time for us to focus on our budget,
living within our means, and getting back to work, but certainly not to try to do all of that on the backs of women. and it is not time to shut down access to women's health care. republicans in the house have decide to wage war and to say women should be a bargaining chip. well, i think the american people have sent us a clear message. they want us to get back to work and they support planned parenthood and the efforts of planned parenthood on preventive health care and health care delivery services. a recent cnn poll showed that 65% of americans polled support continued funding of planned parenthood. and i know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to say that these funds are used and helped in funding organizations that may be involved in doing full reproductive choice services. but i ask them to think about that issue and that logic.
where will they stop? it's planned parenthood today, but are they going to stop every institution in america from receiving federal dollars? it is illegal for planned parenthood to use federal dollars for the full reproductive choice including abortion. it is illegal. you cannot use those funds. and, yet, the other side would like to say that this is an issue where they would like to stop planned parenthood today and then they'll try to stop other organizations in the future. it's time to say no to this amendment tomorrow and to say no on trying to pull back from the full health care funding bill at a time when we need to implement the reforms to keep costs down and to increase access for those who currently don't have access to health care and come back to the system with much more expensive health care needs in the future. so, mr. president, i'm very disappointed that at the 11th hour of a budget debate that is about living within our means,
about how we take the limited recovery we've had and move it forward economically. instead we are saying we cannot move forward on a budget in a recovery until we take everything that we can away from women and access to women's health care. we will fight this tomorrow and i'm proud to be here with my colleagues to say we will be the last line of defense for women in america who are going about their busy lives right now, taking their kids to school, trying to yugle many things -- juggle many things at home and work and they are every day as the budget people within their own homes trying to figure out how to live within their means and the national budget debate has broken to this point? we can only have a budget agreement if you defund women's full access to health care. that is wrong, mr. president, and we will be here tomorrow to fight this battle and speak up for women. i just want to point out to my
colleague, who is here on the floor from new york, that i remember in 1993, in the year of the woman, when so many women got elected to congress, was the first time in the house of representatives we had a woman on every single committee. and the end result of that is we had an increase in funding for women's health research. so much of the research had been up to this point focused on men. why? because there wasn't anybody on the committee to speak up about how women had uniquely different health care needs and deserved to have a bigger share of funding for health care needs of women than were currently being funded. that's what you get when you get representation and the women senators will be here tomorrow to fight, to say that women serve to have being a -- deserve to have access through planned parenthood and title 10 and, please, for those work moms juggling dealing with child care, dealing with their jobs and pay equity at work, dealing with all of these other issues
that women deal with, that they don't have to be a pawn on the debate of the budget that there are people who believe just like the majority of americans do that we should move forward with this kind of preventive health care for women in america. i thank the president and i yield the floor. and i see my colleague from new york who has been a staunch supporter of planned parenthood and women's health care koises, and i -- choices and i thank her for that leadership. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york is recognized. mrs. gillibrand: i want to thank my colleague for her extraordinary remarks. it's a privilege to be here in the senate today to listen to the remarks of all the senate women, colleagues, who care so deeply about women in america and how they are literally being used as a pawn in a debate about the budget. these women have drawn a line in the sand, a line in the sand about we will not let you cross. you may not balance the budget on the backs of women, period.
it's very simple. the election last november was not about a mandate for these social issues. it was about the economy. it was about how are we going to create jobs, how do we get a body of representatives to come together, work together across party lines to come up with solutions? that is what the election was about. the american people voted overwhelmingly for a vote and a discussion of issues relating to jobs. how do we create jobs? how do we create the atmosphere and the landscape so our small businesses can grow? but that's not what the house of representatives is focused on. no, they have created an entire agenda around an assault on women, women's safety nets, women's health care, protections for women and children, early childhood education, prenatal care, pap smears. you name it, this is what they are beginning to focus their attention on. millions of americans depend on reproductive services.
millions of women depend on prenatal care, on early cancer screenings, breast exams, all of the types of preventative health care that families rely on. in fact, in new york, there are over 200,000 new yorkers that rely on this preventative care. for my friends and colleagues, this is a factual statement. current law already prevents federal money from paying for abortions. this has been the law of the land for over 30 years. shutting down the government to fight a political argument is not only outrageous, it is irresponsible. the price for keeping the government open is this assault on women's rights, equality, access to health care, access to preventative care. women shoulder the worst of health care costs, including outrageous discriminatory practices that we worked so hard
during health care reform to fix. the national women's law center tells us that under the previous health care system, a 25-year-old woman would have to pay 45% more just to get basic health care than a male her same age. some of the most essential services required by women for their basic health were not covered by many insurance plans, like prenatal care, pap smears or mammograms or preventative screenings, including postpartum depression, domestic violence and family planning. the institutionalized discrimination in our health care system is wrong, and its attacks on women and their families. what we did in health care reform was to begin to address these issues, to make sure that the inadequacies of our current system could be addressed, safeguarding women's health and making sure that this institutional discrimination no longer exists. yesterday was equal payday. women all across america earn 78
cents for every dollar their male colleague earns who is doing the exact same job. yesterday was the day it would take women to work all last year and this year to earn exactly what that male colleague earned. well, who does that affect? it affects families. it affects every family in america that has a working mother who's bringing money home to pay for her children, for her family, for their well-being. so when we should be talking about the economy and issues about how do we have equal pay in this country, the republican house is talking about how to continue this rhetoric and assault and negative effects on women and their families and what they need to protect themselves. the votes that we're going to have tomorrow to defund planned parenthood, to repeal health care, american women, make no mistake about it, this is an attack on you. it's an attack on every preventative health service, every safety net, everything that you care about, whether it's early childhood education,
whether it's pap smears, whether it's mammograms, whether it's prenatal care when you're pregnant. that is what their efforts are all about, and you should just know that you have women of the senate who will stand by you. we have drawn this line in the sand and we will not allow them to cross it. we are your voice in washington, we are your voice in congress, and we will protect you and the basic safety nets and equality that you should expect out of the u.s. government. since i am the last speaker, i since i am the last speaker, i >> on april 12, 1861, confederate forces ignited the civil war. this month the nation commemorates the 150th anniversary, and this weekend american history tv on c-span3 brings you the sights and sounds from charleston with a special look at wartime life in the
1860s as well as interviews with civil war scholars. get the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/history, or you can press the c-span alert button and have our schedules e-mailed to you. >> now, a two-year senate investigation on the causes of the 2008 financial market crisis. this report was put out by the senate permanent subcommittee on investigations which is chaired by senator levin of michigan. the ranking member is senator tom coburn of oklahoma. this news briefing is about an hour, 15 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. the release of this report is the conclusion of a two-year, bipartisan investigation. it is a long report, obviously, it catalogs conflicts of interest, heedless risk taking
and failures of federal oversight that helped to push the country into the deepest recession since the great depression. this report uses e-mails and other internal documents of the people who were involved in the institutions, businesses that are involved. the report tells the inside story of an economic assault that cost millions of americans their jobs and their homes while wiping out investors, good businesses and markets. high-risk lending, regulatory failures, inflated credit ratings and wall street firms engaging in massive conflicts of interest contaminated the financial system is toxic mortgages and undermines public trust in u.s. markets.
the report that we're releasing todayed is accompanied by over -- can we, are we able to remove that? the report that we're releasing today is accompanied by 700 new documents that were obtained since our hearings, and those documents together are over 5800 pages long, and the report has about 2800 footnotes. it's the longest report that our subcommittee has ever released. it comes at the end of the longest investigation that we've ever done, over two years. it is a bipartisan product of a bipartisan investigation that was bipartisan every step of the way. the threads that run through all of the chapters in this sordid story are conflicts of interest and extreme greed.
the story starts with the lancee thrift, wamu, or washington mutual, selling tens of billions of dollars in dubious and often fraudulent mortgages either directly or through mortgage-backed securities creating a veritable conveyor belt of shoddy loans and mortgages, and in the process, polluting the u.s. financial system with junk assets. the next chapter is about a federal regulator, the the office of thrift supervision, ots, seeing the danger but sitting on its hands instead of acting to oversee a bank on which it depended for 15% of its budget. the page then turns to credit rating agencies, moody's and
standard & poor's which were giving aaa ratings to high-risk securities, securities that were issued by firms that it was dependent upon, that they were dependent upon for their own business which, also, was a clear conflict of interest. and when the securities collapsed in value leaving pension funds and municipalities and other investors, they were all left high and dry. the final chapter of this book looks at investment banks, mainly goldman sachs. they created a huge market for shoddy mortgage-related securities, then packaged and sold them using deceptive practices. placing bets, huge bets, and placing secret bets against the very securities that they were
selling to their clients. and then making big money when the house burned down. senator coburn and his staff, chris barkley, working with me, excuse me, with me, elise bean and her staff have produced an in-depth anatomy of the financial collapse which has affected every american. and i want to thank senator coburn and his staff as well as my own staff for their extraordinary commitment, participation and contribution to this report. it makes all the difference in the world when a action like this is a bipartisan action. it deserves bipartisan support, it has received it from both senator coburn, dr. coburn, myself and our staffs, and it's been a real pleasure to work
with dr. coburn and his staff. now let me turn this over to senator coburn for his opening, and then i'm going to return with a much longer statement, and he's going to then have to leave. dr. coburn. >> carl, senator levin, thank you. i'd make four points, two of them are really duplicative of what senator levin made. the first is we don't need commissions to do our job, and this proves it. we spent $8 million in 15 months on a federal financial inquiry commission that didn't report anything of significance. this staff did it in a period of months with the staff that we have, and we have outlined a very serious report that actually culminates in additional recommendations for our financial regulation. and most of those that you see in the report we concur with. there'll be some differences on policy, but overall what this tells you, if congress would
have done oversight like this on the appropriate committees prior to this, we wouldn't have ever had the problems that we had in 2007 and 2008. i agree with senator levin that a significant conflict of interest led to this precipitous change in our country and in our economy, and they could have been identified in advance. we can hear you. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> i thought i'd heard and seen all things up here. i'm not sure i have.
but conflict of interest led to a lot of poor decision making. and lack of transparency also led to a lot of poor decision making. a lot of what we see in this report, had there been transparency, would have never happened. and then, finally, what i would comment on is that congress hasn't done its job in other areas. i think we've done a great job on this committee of ferreting through this. this is a long report. i've actually read it in detail. it is factually accurate, it is backed up by facts, and it shows without a doubt the lack of ethics in some of our financial institutions who embraced known conflict of interests to accomplish wealth for themselves not caring about the outcome for their customers. and when that happens, no
country can survive and neither can their financial institution. so i am, i'm pleased to join senator levin on this report. i think it will send us in the right direction. i think it's a model for every other committee in congress in terms of doing the investigations that need to be done given the plight of our financial system today and the waste, fraud and abuse that's within the federal government. and we can prevent the next one of these things to happen if congress does its job on a routine, daily basis instead of after the problems have occurred. senator levin. >> thank you very much, tom.
[inaudible conversations] >> the report which we are handing out today, we know, is an intimidating one in terms of it size and complexity. but that's what it took to lay out the tawdry details that are involved in this massive failure. we've tried to assist the reader in a number of ways. the hard copies which we have, the cdss which are -- the cds, excuse me, which we're handing out. this is on our web site. each chapter begins with specific findings of fact and then details the evidence. and then there are
recommendations which are laid out, and all the recommendations are in one place on pages 12-15. the first chapter is about washington mutual, the largest thrift institution in the country. and it's about the loans that they made and the mortgages which resulted from those loans which defaulted enmass leaving hundreds of billions of dollars in losses and triggering the economic disaster that followed. there was a warning from the chief risk officer of wamu, jim van sec, months before the high-risk lending strategy was presented to the wamu board, and that's laid out on page 66 when he talked about the housing bubble that's coming, and they should be much more conservative. despite that, the wamu board was presented with a high-risk
strategy involving, relying on subprime loans where the borrowers who were greater credit risks are provided loans, where there's no verification of income. these are the so-called stated income loans, where there's low initial teaser rates on the loans, where there's negative amortization, so-called option arms where the person taking out the mortgage is actually able to pay in less than is owing, so that means that the principal grows instead of declines. that's all laid out on page 19 of the report. the reason that this court of action was taken is because of profit. and on page 64 of the report what you'll see is the presentation to the wamu board showing the margin of the gain
on the sale of these products in basis points, and the government guaranteed mortgage had a margin of 13 basis points compared to fixed mortgages having 19. and then you go all the way down to these high-risk mortgages, option arms, home equity loans. [inaudible conversations] have been what? so the relative, the relative gain on sale depending on the type of mortgages, there's a huge difference. subprime mortgage, the gain on sale average is 150 basis points compared to the fixed loans of 19. so you've got a seven times as much profit going to wamu from the use of this strategy. so there was a huge gain in terms of profit, a huge risk as
it turned out. but that's the reason they went in this direction, and that chart on page 64 was the presentation to the wamu board. now, what happened was because of shoddy lending practices, the toleration of fraudulent loans, um, extensive fraud. this is all laid out on page 49. the knowingly, the knowing sale of delinquent loans to investors, um, the collapse followed. and one of the key points that we're making in the wamu presentation here is on page 126. the representation to the buyers
of the wamu mortgages near the end just before the collapse when they saw that their mortgages were in trouble, that representation to buyers was that there was no adverse selection procedures in the selection of mortgages. and on pages 127-134 you can see that, as a matter of fact, that was a false representation. on -- first on page 126, excuse me. near the bottom it says that wamu e-mails and the memoranda obtained by the subcommittee indicate that prior to assembling the loan pool used this that securitization -- in
that securitization that wamu identified delinquency-prone option armor gangs in the its help for investment loan portfolio and transferred those loans to its portfolio of mortgages available for sale or securitization. wamu then used its held for sale loan portfolio to select loans for the loan pool used in the securitization. and further down, the internal e-mails demonstrate that wamu selected delinquency-prone loans for sale in order to move risk from the bank's books to the investors in wamu's securities and profit from its internal analysis which was not available to the market. so while they had a commitment, a written commitment that they would not select in a way that would be unfair, in other words, that they would not have an adverse selection procedure, in
fact, they did have an adverse selection procedure. some of the restrictions on teaser loans and negative amortization loans are in the dodd-frank legislation. chapter two is the case study of the, of ots. and the office of thrift supervision there were, they identified, they identified during the years 2004 and 2008 500 deficiencies at wamu. 500 deficiencies. and you'll see on page 164 of the report that the -- we find that the ots allowed wamu year after year to engage in shoddy and fraudulent loans. we find that it abdicated it responsibility. we find that it, the regulatory body ots, quote, impeded fdic oversight of washington mutual
and, on pages 177 and 195, that the bank examiners, quote, were well aware of and haddock united the bank's high-risk, poor-quality loans and deficient lending practices. so despite that, all of that knowledge ots sat on its hands and failed to do what it was put into business to do, and if you'll take a look at page 110, there's kind of an interesting e-mail that went -- from the ots director to the wamu ceo. so this is the head of ots e-mailing killinger, the head of
wamu. kerri -- he addresses him, starts off first name. he apologizes. he says, i'm sorry to communicate by e-mail. i've left a couple messages on your office phone, but i'm guessing you may be off for a long weekend. he's been wrestling with the issue of a memorandum of understanding versus a board resolution as a result of our conversation. i've decided an mou is the right approach for ots. and then he goes on. we almost always do a memorandum of understanding for three-rated institutions, and if someone swr looking over our shoulders, they would probably be surprised we don't already have one in place. so as much as i would like to be able to say a board resolution is the appropriate regulatory response, i don't really believe it is. so he would like to say a weaker action on his part is appropriate, but he doesn't believe it. and then he says, i do believe we need to do an mou.
we don't consider it a disclose bl event, and then he goes on to say we also think the investment community won't be surprised if they learn of -- and would probably only be surprised to learn one didn't already exist. [inaudible conversations] >> on page 211, the top of page 211. continuing this e-mail from the director of ots, this apologetic e-mail to the head of wamu after 500 mistakes. 500 identified problems at wamu with no public action having been taken. now you get this e-mail apologizing, sorry to communicate this way. instead of lowering the boom on wamu, he sends this kind of message. and then he says, again, he's sorry to communicate this decision by mail. and what this, in the words of our report, next paragraph: what
this does is convey a sense of familiarity and disclose that the head of ots knew his agency had already been providing preferential treatment to the bank by failing to impose an mou after its downgrade to a three rating five months earlier in february of '08. and from rich, i think he pronounces his name, the head of ots says, quote, looking over our shoulders -- if others, quote, looking over our shoulders would probably be surprised that there was not an mou already in place. no kidding. the ots was abolished by dodd-frank, and for goods reasons. chapter three. these are the inflated credit ratings. and i'm just giving you some highlights here, and then i'll turn -- i'll answer some questions and then turn this over to the staff. but i want to save most of the time for chapter four which is
mainly goldman. chapter three is the inflated credit ratings. inflated credit ratings in the words of our report on page 5, now, the report and the executive summary: inflated credit ratings contributed to the financial crisis by masking the true risk of many mortgage-related securities. page 6 of the report traditionally aaa has less than 1% likelihood of support. still on page 6, 90% of the aaa ratings given to subprime rmbss that were rated in 2006 and 2007 were later downgraded to junk. and so we also say in our report that inaccurate aaa credit ratings were, quote, a key cause of the financial crisis. there's an inherent conflict of interest, we say, when the issuer pays. in other words, when the money that is coming in to the credit
rating agency comes from the person whose security is being rated, and we point out that the credit rating agencies weakened their standards in order to keep wall street in business. they were aware of the problems on page 7. they did not temper their ratings despite the fact they were aware of the high-risk loans. and on page 25 of we talk -- 256 we talked about the revenues which were received by moody's and standard & poor's growing from 61 -- in the case of moody's from 61 million to $260 million from 2002 to 2006. in the case of standard & poor's, also going up about 400% from 64 million to $265 million from 2002 to 2006.
page 273 of our report we say that the drive for market share and be increasing revenues -- and increasing revenues, ratings shopping and investment bank pressures have undermined the ratings process and the quality of the ratings management at moody's and standard & poor's and that they used intense pressure to maintain market share. that's all laid out on page 275. 276 talked about the ongoing threat of losing deals as being one of the drivers in providing these ratings which were so exaggerated. and the recommendation, by the way, we make at least one of them at the end of this particular chapter is that the fcc should -- sec should use its regulatory authority to rank the ratings organizations in terms of accuracy. it's kind of a new approach in
getting some objectivity into the ratings business. the fourth part has to do with investment bank abuses, and this is the case study of goldman sachs and deutsche bank. mainly goldman sachs, but there is a section on deutsche bank because we uncovered some information showing some disturbing activities there as well. from 2004 to 2008, the financial institutions of the o united states issued $2.5 -- 2.5 trillion rmbs, residential mortgage-backed securities. and $1.4 trillion in cdos which are these collateralized debt obligations which are backed by debt products, so it's a huge outflow of these structured transactions. these financial products were developed by the investment banks. it allowed wagers on the rise or
fall in the value of specific securities or collections of securities which were referenced in these cdos and the so so-called abxs. the indexes allowed people and these financial institutions and their clients to bet on the rise or the fall in the value of a basket of subprime securities. on page 319 which should be the next page i'd like to refer you to, in the middle we mind the following: that in the case of goldman sachs, the practices, their practices included exploiting conflicts of interest with the firm's clients. for example, goldman used cds and abx contracts to place billions of dollars of bets that specific rmbs securities, basket of rmbs securities or collection
of assets in cdo would fall in value while at the same time convincing customers to invest in new rmbss and cdo securities. and then it makes reference to hudson which i'll get into some detail in a few minutes. in some instances it says goldman took the entire short side of a $2 billion cdo, selected assets to transfer risks from goldman's own holdings, allowed investors to buy the securities without disclosing its short position, and when the cdo lost value, made a $1.7 billion gain at the expense of the clients to whom it had sold the securities. and then, also -- no.
now, the deutsche bank material comes next on page 330 and on, and i'm going to leave that up to staff to get into because it's, it's running kind of late in terms of what my plans were. page 376 we're back to goldman sachs, and i'll refer you to that page. >> the hudson, anderson, timer wolf and abacus cdo show how goldman transferred risk associated with high-risk assets, assist a favored client make a $1 billion gain and
profit at the direct expense of the clients that invested in the goldman cdos. in the, in addition the case study shows how conflicts of interest related to proprietary investments led goldman to conceal its adverse financial interests from potential investors, sell investors poor quality investments and place its financial interests before those of it clients. that's a pretty damning, damaging kind of a finding. but there's tens of pages of evidence that is between these findings to support it. now, something which is totally new in here is that goldman attempted what's called a short squeeze. and that information is also
this is a self-evaluation of one of the traders on the desk that ran this operation. this is what he wrote. in may while we were remaining as negative as ever on the fundamentals in subprime, the market was trading very short is and susceptible to a squeeze. we began to encourage this squeeze with plans of getting very short again after the short squeeze caused capitulation of these shorts. this strategy seemed doable and brilliant, but once the negative fundamental news kept coming at a tremendous rate, we stopped waiting for the shorts to capitulate and instead just reinitiated short ourselves immediately. this was an attempt, into as part of that -- and as part of that attempt on page 426, these were some of the e-mails that were written. near the top, we should be offering single-name protection could
down on the offer side of the street on tier i stuff to cause maximum pain. four days later, we should start killing the single-name shorts on the street. let's pick up some high quality stuff that guys are hoping is wider today. later on this will have people totally demoralized. further down, goldman documents show there was a plan and an attempt to conduct a short squeeze despite the harm that might be caused to goldman's clients. that's the finding of our report on the short squeeze, but i want to go back to the, the big short. page 446 describes the, the large net short positions in subprime mortgage market that goldman had true -- through most of 2007. the end of february 2007 $10
billion met short position, mid june 2007 a $13 billion net short position. goldman, on page 451, claims that the net short language is too simplistic. and that it doesn't account for the weight or value of short positions in different asset classes. that's goldman's claim as laid out on page 451. but their own charts and their own documents used the term, "net shorts" 3400 times. they never used the weighted method for their assets. is their claim is the use of the term "net short" is too simplistic. you have got to use a weighted method. 3400 times. these are just in the documents that we've seen. now, we've seen a lot of documents, it's in the millions. but nonetheless, 3400 times, net short, not once is the approach that they think is more
appropriate which is the weighted value. and, by the way, those shorts were not a hedge. that's another claim that goldman has made, that they were hedging. their own documents on page 454 explicitly say this is not a hedge. now, when you look at their documents from pages 466-469, we lay out their own documents talking about the big short. 466, i'm quoting -- the report quotes here now. quote, the risk bias was to be short. 467, the overall net short in the third quarter -- that's what they represented to their own board. 467, the mortgage desk benefited from a proprietary short. 468, we put on a big short position. 469, enormous directional short.
469, goldman to the sec: we chose to take a directional view of the market during most of 2007 we maintained a net short subprime position and stood to benefit from declining prices and the mortgage market. page 470. mr. blankfein in a public conference said, quote -- this is from the newspaper. blankfein said the firm is still betting that mortgage-backed assets and collateralized debt obligations will drop. given that point of view, we continue to be net short in these markets, quoting blankfein. vinier, their cfo, page 471, we made money on mortgages as a result of our net short position. 472, vinier, we had a big short. 473, burn balm, the greatest trade ever made. i have a huge short. now, later on goldman's denied that there was a directional bet
against housing, and they denied that they were consistently net short. page 474, and i want to go back to actually reading from the report. near the bottom of page 474, goldman's denials of it net short positions in the subprime mortgage market and the large profits produced by these, by those net short positions are directly contradicted by it own financial records and internal commune caigs as well as -- cases as well as its own public statements in 2007 and are not credible. that's our finding. their denials are not credible. now, later on, a couple of pages later, i think we get the answer
as to why they were denying what they obviously were doing. and that is that the evidence discloses not just that they had a big short, but that they engaged in troubling and sometimes abusive practices. page 476. report, quote: the evidence discloses troubling and sometimes abusive practices which show, first, that goldman knowingly sold high-risk, poor-quality mortgage products to clients around the world saturating markets with complex financially-engineered instruments that magnified risk and losses when their underlying assets began to fail. second, it shows multiple conflicts of interest surrounding goldman's securitization activities including its use of cdos to transfer billions of dollars of risk to investors, make a
billion dollar gain at the expense of other clients and produce its own proprietary gains at the expense of the clients to whom goldman sold the cdo securities. why would goldman deny what is so obvious that they were engaged in a huge short in the year 2007? why would they deny it? because they gained at the expense of their clients. and they used abusive practices to do it. pages 480-485 showed what happened at the end of 2006, beginning of 2007. when the mortgage market began to fall. they tried very hard to return some of the securities back to the people that they had obtained them from, they being
goldman sachs. they said trying to, quote, put back these loans, getting them back to the people to who had sold them to it, quote, will be a battle, on page 484. the analysts analyzed that they'd have to put back at least 26% of the new century loans. then on page 486, new century stopped paying back the money that goldman was claiming it owed them because the loans were so deficient. and what happened after all of this happening, all of this evidence of goldman's awareness of bad mortgages, failing mortgages they continued to securitize those same mortgages, and that's all laid out on page 487. and 488. they securitized a billion dollars of subprimes in march of '07. this is after their own assessments were that the market
had gone under, that they were trying desperately to return those securities to the people that had issued them and to get reimbursed for them. nonetheless, they were continuing to securitize and to sell, and they did sell large numbers of these mortgages and these securities, excuse me, in the early months of 2007. the huge sales effort that they made making this a top priority, page 503, to sell these securities which were based on mortgages that they knew were defective, deficient, they were failing. they were selling to nontraditional clients around the world. they were giving out what they called ginormous sales credits to their sales people if they could sell it. now, page 513 we find in 2006 and 2007 goldman's
securitization business was marked not just by its hard-sell tactics, but also by multiple conflicts of interest in which goldman sachs' financial interests were opposed to those of it clients. and that gets us, finally, to hudson. this is one of the four securities that we've analyzed at some length. the hudson security called 2006-1. it was synthetic, $2 billion cdo that referenced certain assets, and i won't get into that detail. but the key feature is the number of conflicts of interest that were involved just in hudson. and i call it the hudson scam. and page 517.
>> right in the middle there. in one key feature of the three hudson cdos, and that would include the one we're talking about, was that goldman it without any third party participation selected the assets which were supposed to e remain with the cdo until they reached maturity or were deemed credit risk assets at which point goldman was responsible for selling them. in each of hudson's cdos, goldman played multiple roles including selecting assets and serving as the underwriter,
initial purchaser, collateral provider, senior swap counterparty and credit protection buyer. in hudson i goldman took 100% of the short side of the cdo, and when hudson won securities that declined in the value, goldman made a $1.35 billion profit at the expense of the clients to whom it had sold the securities. page 518 it's the reason that they created hudson was to create an exit for what they call on line 8 there their long abx risk. they were long in these securities in the abxs, and they tried to sell 'em, and that's all laid out on page 518. conceiving hudson i, it's called, where it says goldman had accumulated millions of dollars -- billions of dollars, excuse me, in abx assets referencing mezzanine subprime securities. by august they had decided that
the abx trade had run it course. we're talking august '0. '06. and directed the abx desk to sell off holdings. after several weeks abx was unable to find buyers and the mezzanine assets which were dropping in value were losing millions of dollars for the firm. so whatdid they do? page 519, they decided to craft a cdo to incorporate the abx and to try to see if they could reduce the firm's risk in that way. and the history of how that first-ever abx cdo which is what we call it on the bottom of page 519 would function as an exit for the firm's long abx position is all laid out on these pages here. now, i want to jump ahead to